|
1. Aggregate
Irrigated Farm Values by Farm Size
2. Weighted-Average
Irrigated Farm-Size Statistics
3.
Weighted-Average
Farm Irrigation Costs by Farm Size
4. Irrigation
Technologies by Farm Size
5. Water-Conserving/Higher-Efficiency
Irrigation by Farm Size
6. Irrigation
Water Management Practices by Farm Size
7. Barriers
to Irrigation System Improvements by Farm Size
8. Producer
Participation in Irrigation-Related Public Cost-Share
Programs by Farm Size
1. Aggregate
Irrigated Farm Values by Farm Size (Electronic Data
Tables 1-1 to 1-14)
Irrigated farms (1-1). Most irrigated
farms in 1998 were small farms. Out of 147,000 irrigated
farms (FRIS total expanded farms) in the Western States,
65 percent had less than $100,000 in total farm sales,
while nearly 81 percent had sales of less than $250,000.
Just less than 20 percent had farm sales greater than
or equal to $250,000 and only 9.5 percent of irrigated
farms had sales greater than or equal to $500,000. Utah
had the largest share of small irrigated farms, at 94
percent. States with a slightly higher share of larger
irrigated farms were all in the Plains region (except
for Arizona), with a heavier dependence on groundwater
use. Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, North Dakota, and Arizona
show the highest percentage of larger farms with irrigation
(Kansas, 50; Nebraska, 31; Texas, 28; North Dakota, 32;
and Arizona, 28 percent). Irrigated farms in the West
are generally larger (in terms of sales) than nonirrigated
farms, averaging $850 per harvested acre versus $120 (NASS,
1997).
Total irrigated farm sales (1-2). Of
the $38.7 billion in 1997 farm sales (for 1998 FRIS irrigated
farms in the West), 85 percent were from farms with sales
above $250,000 and 72 percent from farms with sales above
$500,000. Smaller irrigated farms (farm sales (FS) <
$250,000) accounted for only 15 percent of total irrigated
farm sales. These distributions were characteristic of
most Western States, except Arizona and California, where
90-96 percent of farm sales were from larger irrigated
farms (FS > $250,000). In Montana, Utah, and
Wyoming, total farm sales are more uniformly distributed
across the four farm-size classes. Overall, the largest
9.5 percent of irrigated farms in the West accounted for
72 percent of 1997 farm sales from irrigated farms. (For
this FRIS data, only farm sales value was for 1997—all other FRIS statistics are for 1998.)
Total farm acres, harvested cropland and pastureland
acres (1-3 to 1-5). Total farm acres for 1998
irrigated farms in the West are uniformly distributed
across the four size classes (22.9, 20.7, 22.0, and 34.4
percent). Exceptions include California, Kansas, and Nevada,
where 70-73 percent of total farm acres are held by large
irrigated farms (FS > $250,000). In Arizona,
Oregon, and Washington, 60-65 percent of total farm acres
are held by large farms. Nearly 63 percent of harvested
cropland acres held by irrigated farms are associated
with large irrigated farms. For Arizona, California, and
Washington, these percentages are slightly higher (88,
79, and 74 percent). Pastureland acres for irrigated farms
are also relatively evenly distributed between small and
large farms westwide (48 percent versus to 52 percent).
Only in California and Nevada did larger irrigated farms
hold decidedly more pastureland acres than smaller irrigated
farms (65 and 78 percent).
Total farm irrigated acres (1-6 to 1-7).
Larger irrigated farms account for most irrigated acres
in agricultural production. Of the 38.5 million 1998 FRIS
irrigated acres in the West, 61 percent are associated
with larger farms (FS > $250,000), while at
least 41 percent are associated with the largest farms
(FS > $500,000). For Arizona, California, Kansas,
and Washington, larger irrigated farms account for up
to 89, 75, 75, and 74 percent, respectively, of irrigated
acres. For several States, smaller farm size classes (FS
< $250,000) account for a higher percentage of irrigated
acres, including Montana at 64 percent, Utah at 72 percent,
and Wyoming at 60 percent.
Total farm water applied (1-8). Larger
irrigated farms accounted for an even greater share of
farm water use. Farms with sales above $250,000 accounted
for 66 percent of the 76.2 million acre feet (maf) of
total farm water applied by 1998 FRIS irrigated farms
in the West. In addition, the 9.5 percent of largest irrigated
farms (FS > $500,000) accounted for 48.4 percent
of total farm water applied. Smaller irrigated farms (FS
< $250,000), nearly 81 percent of all irrigated farms,
accounted for only 34 percent of total farm water applied.
The share of farm water applied by larger irrigated farms
is much more dramatic for Arizona, California, Kansas,
and Washington, where larger farms (FS > $250,000)
account for 75-87 percent of total farm water applied.
For these States alone, irrigated farms with sales above
$500,000 (5.2 percent of all irrigated farms in the West)
account for 31 percent of total farm water applied in
the West (about 23.4 maf out of 76.2 maf).
In Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, smaller irrigated farms
(FS < $250,000) account for a higher percentage of
total farm water use—61, 72, and 59 percent.
Farm Irrigated Acres by Water Source and
Farm Size
Acres irrigated with groundwater (1-12).
Westwide, 53 percent of total farm-irrigated acres (20.3
million acres out of 38.5 million acres) were irrigated
with some groundwater in 1998. Larger irrigated farms
(FS > $250,000) account for 68 percent of such
acres. For all Western States, larger irrigated farms
dominate acres irrigated with groundwater, except for
Utah (45 percent) and Wyoming (33 percent). Larger irrigated
farms in Arizona, California, Washington, and North Dakota
account for the largest shares of groundwater-irrigated
acres (85, 79, 82, and 78 percent).
Acres Irrigated with onfarm surface water (1-13).
Westwide, 13 percent of total farm-irrigated acres (5.0
million acres out of 38.5 million acres) were irrigated
with some water from an onfarm surface water supply in
1998. The distribution of surface-water acres is relatively
uniform between small and large irrigated farms (48 and
52 percent). Larger irrigated farms account for the largest
share of acres irrigated with onfarm surface water in
California, Oklahoma, and Washington (85, 69, and 70 percent).
For Oklahoma and Washington, relatively few acres are
irrigated with onfarm surface water. Many more acres are
irrigated using onfarm surface water by larger farms in
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming (with relatively even
farm-size distributions) than in Oklahoma and Washington.
Smaller irrigated farms (FS < $250,000) account for
the largest share of acres irrigated with onfarm surface
water in Colorado, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah.
Acres irrigated with off-farm surface water (1-14).
For all Western States, 38 percent of total farm irrigated
acres in 1998 (14.6 million acres out of 38.5 million
acres) were irrigated with some water from an off-farm
surface-water supply (publicly supplied water). The distribution
of acres using off-farm surface water is relatively uniform
between small and large irrigated farms (44 and 56 percent).
Larger irrigated farms in Arizona, California, Oklahoma,
and Washington account for the largest shares of acres
irrigated with off-farm publicly supplied water (92, 72,
74, and 70 percent). However, substantially more acres
were irrigated with off-farm surface water by larger farms
in Idaho and Oregon (with relatively uniform farm-size
distributions) than were irrigated by larger farms in
Oklahoma. Smaller irrigated farms (FS < $250,000) account
for the largest share of acres irrigated with off-farm
surface water in Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Utah, and
Wyoming.
Farm Water Applied by Source and Farm Size
Total groundwater applied (1-9). While
groundwater accounted for only 39 percent of all farm
water use westwide in 1998, nearly 73 percent of groundwater
use was by larger irrigated farms (FS > $250,000),
with 50 percent of all groundwater being applied by the
largest farms (FS > $500,000). Smaller irrigated
farms (81 percent of all irrigated farms) accounted for
only 28 percent of groundwater use on farms.
Groundwater-dependent States (dependent upon groundwater
for at least half of their farm water use)—including
Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, and North
Dakota—are not the States where the largest farms account
for the greater groundwater-use shares. Rather, the heavily
surface-water-dependent States—Arizona, California,
and Washington—are the States where the largest farms
account for the greater groundwater-use shares. About
85 percent of the groundwater use for each of these States
was applied by the larger irrigated farms (FS >
$250,000), which likely use groundwater as a supplemental
water supply to support more extensive-margin irrigated
agriculture.
Total onfarm surface water applied (1-10).
While total surface water accounted for 61 percent of
water use by farms westwide, onfarm surface water accounted
for only about 12 percent in 1998. Onfarm surface water
is relatively less important for larger farms than either
groundwater or water from off-farm surface supplies. For
the West, larger irrigated farms (FS > $250,000)
accounted for 59 percent of onfarm surface water use,
while farms with sales above $500,000 accounted for 40
percent. However, for California and Oklahoma, larger
irrigated farms accounted for 93 and 81 percent of onfarm
surface-water use. For both States, the largest irrigated
farms (FS > $500,000) accounted for a significant
share of onfarm surface-water use (67 and 70 percent).
For Nebraska, Texas, and Washington, the share of onfarm
surface water accounted for by larger irrigated farms
is not as significant. However, even for these States,
the shares are greater than 50 percent.
Total off-farm surface water applied (1-11).
Westwide, off-farm surface water use (publicly supplied
water) accounted for 49 percent of all farm water use
in 1998. Water from publicly supplied off-farm sources
is used more heavily by larger irrigated farms (FS >
$250,000) than is water from onfarm surface sources. Larger
irrigated farms accounted for 63 percent of off-farm surface-water
use, while the largest farms (FS > $500,000)
accounted for 49 percent. Again, larger irrigated farms
in Arizona, California, Oklahoma, and Washington accounted
for the largest shares of off-farm surface-water use in
1998 (91, 74, 72, and 76 percent). Irrigation in Arizona,
California, and Washington together accounted for 45 percent
of all off-farm (publicly supplied) surface-water use
in the West.
2. Weighted-Average
Irrigated Farm-Size Statistics (Electronic Data Tables
2-1 to 2-10; 3-1 to 3-11; 4-1a to 4-6c; and 5-1)
Value of 1997 farm sales per irrigated farm (2-1).
The average value of farm sales (1997) for FRIS irrigated
farms was $263,211 per irrigated farm in the West. However,
the westwide average is really not all that telling. The
real story exists in average irrigated farm sales value
across farm-size classes. About 65 percent of irrigated
farms (those with FS < $100,000) had an average total
farm sales value of $22,600 per irrigated farm in 1997,
while 9.5 percent of irrigated farms (those with FS
> $500,000) had an average total farm sales value
of nearly $2.0 million per irrigated farm. By State, the
average sales value per irrigated farm (for all farm-size
classes) ranged from $54,000 for Utah to $640,000 for
Kansas. For the smallest size class (FS < $100,000),
average sales per irrigated farm ranged from $7,300 for
Arizona to $59,700 for Kansas. For the largest farms (FS
> $500,000), average 1997 sales ranged from
$846,000 for Montana to $2.9 million for Oklahoma (interestingly,
not California). (For this FRIS data, only farm sales
value was for 1997—all other FRIS statistics are for
1998.)
Total farm acres per irrigated farm (2-2).
For all Western States, the average acres per FRIS irrigated
farm was 1,010 in 1998, ranging from 355 acres for the
smallest farm size to 3,650 acres for the largest. For
comparison, the 1997 Census of Agriculture reported average
total farm acres for irrigated farms in the West at 1,001
acres. However, average farm acres from both sources include
the influence of rangeland, that is, privately owned/leased
pastureland and grazing lands. (The numbers exclude lands
leased under a government grazing permit.)
Across States, average farm acreage in irrigated farms
varies dramatically. For the smallest irrigated farms
(FS < $100,000), average farm acres in 1998 ranged
from 68 acres for Washington to 1,314 acres for North
Dakota. For the largest irrigated farms (FS >
$500,000), average farm acres ranged from 1,351 acres
for Washington to 21,685 acres for Wyoming.
Total irrigated acres per irrigated farm (2-3).
Irrigated acreage across the West averaged 262 acres per
FRIS irrigated farm in 1998 versus 212 acres in the 1997
Census of Agriculture. FRIS size varies from an average
79 irrigated acres for the smallest irrigated farms (FS
< $100,000) to 1,132 acres for the largest (FS >
$500,000). Because statistics for farm irrigated acres
remove the "rangeland" influence, the farm-size
variability for average irrigated acres across States
is more meaningful. For the smallest irrigated farms,
average irrigated acres ranged from 23 acres for Arizona
in 1998 to 360 acres for Kansas. For the largest irrigated
farms, average irrigated acres ranged from 757 acres for
Washington to 2,286 acres for Nevada.
Harvested cropland acres per irrigated farm (2-4).
Average harvested cropland acres per irrigated FRIS farm
mirror the effects of farm size on average irrigated acres
per irrigated farm. Harvested cropland averaged 317 acres
across the West in 1998, ranging from 74 acres for the
smallest irrigated farms to 1,287 acres for the largest
irrigated farms. Average harvested cropland acres also
varies significantly across States, ranging from 102 acres
per irrigated farm for Utah to 1,184 acres and 1,200 acres
for Kansas and North Dakota in 1998. For the smallest
size class, average harvested cropland acres per irrigated
farm ranged from 23 acres for Washington to 591 acres
for Kansas. For the largest farms, average harvested cropland
acres ranged from 658 acres for Utah to 3,391 acres for
North Dakota.
Weighted Average Irrigated
Acres by Water Source and Farm Size
Groundwater irrigated acres per irrigated farm
using groundwater (2-5). Across the West, groundwater-irrigated
acres averaged 335 acres per irrigated farm using groundwater
in 1998, ranging from 85 acres for the smallest size class
to 932 acres for the largest. However, significant variability
exists across States. For example, for the smallest size
class (FS < $100,000), average groundwater-irrigated
acres (for farms using groundwater) ranged from 10 acres
for Montana to 342 acres for Kansas. For the largest size
class (FS > $500,000) the average ranged from
405 acres for Oregon to 1,612 acres for Nevada. For all
the West, the average farm size in groundwater-irrigated
acres is generally higher across size classes than for
surface-water-irrigated acres. The exception here is the
smallest farm-size class. This difference likely reflects
differences in economic efficiency requirements across
water sources—groundwater irrigation is generally more
expensive.
Acres irrigated using onfarm surface water, per
irrigated farm using onfarm surface water (2-6).
For all western States, farm acres irrigated with onfarm
surface water averaged 221 acres per farm using onfarm
surface water in 1998, ranging from 97 acres for the smallest
size class to 761 acres for the largest. Again, significant
variability exists across States. For the smallest size
class (FS < $100,000), average per-farm acres irrigated
with onfarm surface water ranged from 21 acres for Arizona
to 400 acres for Kansas. For the largest class (FS >
$500,000), average acres ranged from 92 acres for Kansas
to 2,994 acres for Nevada. Across States, the average
acres irrigated using onfarm surface water is less than
the corresponding farm-size statistic for groundwater-irrigated
acres. However, for several States, average acres irrigated
with onfarm surface water are significantly higher than
average acres irrigated with groundwater. For these States
—Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada—this difference
in average farm size between groundwater- and onfarm surface-water-irrigated
acres likely reflects a greater dependence on onfarm surface-water
use for flood irrigation of hay and/or pastureland.
Acres irrigated using off-farm surface water,
per irrigated farm using off-farm surface water (2-7).
Average acreage irrigated using water from off-farm water
suppliers (publicly supplied water) was 180 acres in 1998
across the West, ranging from 67 acres for the smallest
size class to 893 acres for the largest. Here, average
acres for the smallest class (FS < $100,000) is less
than the equivalent average for either groundwater or
for onfarm surface water. At the same time, average acres
using off-farm surface water for the largest farms (FS
> $500,000) is greater than the equivalent average
for onfarm surface water and nearly as large as the average
for groundwater-irrigated acres. These results suggest
that greater dependence on more expensive water (pumped
groundwater or purchased off-farm water) likely promotes
increased size for irrigated farms. Finally, average acres
irrigated with off-farm surface water varied widely across
States in 1998. For the smallest size class, the average
ranged from 20 acres for Arizona to 156 acres for South
Dakota. For the largest class, the average ranged from
239 acres for Kansas to 1,527 acres for South Dakota.
Weighted-Average Water-Use Statistics by
Farm Size
Total farm water applied per irrigated farm (2-8).
Total water applied per Western irrigated farm averaged
518 acre-feet in 1998. Water use ranged from 145 acre-feet
for the smallest irrigated farms (FS < $100,000) to
2,632 acre-feet for the largest (FS > $500,000).
For all size classes, New Mexico and Utah had the lowest
applied water rates per farm, averaging 287 acre-feet
per irrigated farm, while Arizona had the highest rate
at 1,562 acre-feet per irrigated farm. For the smallest
size class, total water applied ranged from 61 acre-feet
per irrigated farm (Washington) to 394 acre-feet (Nevada).
For the largest size class, applied water ranged from
813 acre-feet per irrigated farm (South Dakota) to 6,807
acre-feet (Arizona). However, these averages reflect the
greater degree of extensive-margin irrigation/water use
typical of larger irrigated farms.
Irrigation application rates - total and by water
source (acre feet/acre) (2-9 to 2-10 and 3-1 to 3-9) .
The largest irrigated farms (FS > $500,000)
tend to be the more intensive-margin irrigation operations
—that is, their average water application rates (acre-feet
per acre) tend to be slightly greater. Irrigated farms
in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Washington influence
this result more so than irrigation in the other Western
States. For all of the West, the average water application
rate was 2.0 acre-feet per acre in 1998, 2.0 acre-feet
for the smallest size class and 2.2 acre-feet for the
largest. For all size classes, application rates varied
significantly across States, ranging from 0.8 acre-feet
per acre (Nebraska and North Dakota) to 3.9 acre-feet
per acre (Arizona), reflecting differences in crops grown,
climate, technologies, and water costs.
Across the West, intensive-margin water use tends to
be greater for surface-water irrigation (particularly
for water applied from off-farm sources). The application
rate for groundwater averaged 1.5 acre-feet per acre in
1998, ranging from 1.3 acre-feet for the smallest farms
to 1.7 acre-feet for the largest. The application rate
for off-farm surface water averaged 2.6 acre-feet per
acre, ranging from 2.2 acre-feet for the smallest farms
to 2.9 acre-feet for the largest. Application rates for
onfarm surface water generally fall between rates for
groundwater and for off-farm surface water. So, barring
consideration of crops irrigated (and all other factors),
intensive-margin water-use statistics suggest that groundwater
could be more efficiently applied than irrigation using
surface-water sources. This is understandable, given that
groundwater is generally the higher cost irrigation alternative.
3. Weighted-Average Farm
Irrigation Costs by Farm Size (Electronic Data Tables
3-10 to 3-11; 4-1a to 4-6c; and 5-1)
Purchased water costs ($/acre and $/acre foot
) (3-10 to 3-11). Costs for publicly supplied
water averaged about $41.29 per acre (or $16.20 per acre-foot)
in 1998. However, for the West, this average ranged from
$26.65 per acre ($12.27 per acre-foot) for the smallest
irrigated farms (FS < $100,000) to $56.72 per acre
($19.26 per acre-foot) for the largest (FS >
$500,000). States range widely in their water costs, both
in total and by size of farm. In addition, because of
differences in applied water rates, the range of values
for purchased water costs per acre differ from costs per
acre-foot across States. Average purchased water costs
(for all farm sizes) ranged from $9.96 per acre ($4.76
per acre-foot) for Wyoming to $84.69 per acre for Arizona
(or $27.66 per acre-foot for Oklahoma). For the smallest
size class, average purchased water costs ranged from
$8.97 per acre for Nebraska (or $5.32 per acre-foot for
Wyoming) to $65.06 per acre for Arizona (or $37.36 per
acre-foot for Oklahoma). For the largest irrigated farms,
costs ranged from $4.45 per acre (or $3.30 per acre-foot)
for South Dakota to $81.75 per acre for Arizona (or $53.29
per acre-foot for North Dakota).
Irrigation energy (pumping) costs; total and by energy source ($ per acre) (4-1a to 4-6c)Irrigation water is generally delivered and/or
applied using either a gravity-based system or a pressurized
system (which uses a pump). Irrigation pumping costs vary
by the energy source used to power the pump (electric, natural
gas, diesel fuel, gasoline, or use of LP gas, propane, or
butane). For the West, irrigation pumping costs across all
energy sources averaged about $37.70 per acre in 1998, ranging
from $29.41 per acre for the smallest irrigated farms (FS
< $100,000) to $41.36 per acre for the largest (FS >
$500,000). These costs also vary across States, ranging
from $14.68 per acre (Montana) to about $62.60 per acre
(both California and Arizona). Variability in average pumping
costs is greater for the smaller than for the largest irrigated
farms. For example, average pumping costs (across all energy
sources) for the smallest size class ranged from $11 per
acre for Montana to $98.81 for Arizona. For the largest
size class, average pumping costs ranged from $17.17 per
acre for North Dakota to $54.20 for Arizona.
Average irrigation pumping costs are relatively uniform
across farm sizes for all power sources except electricity.
Here a distinct difference exists. Westwide, electric-powered
pumps are generally the higher cost source for irrigation
pumping, averaging $43.75 per acre (compared with $34.05
for natural gas, $21.52 for diesel fuel, $18.25 for gasoline,
and $17.82 for LP gas, propane, and butane). However,
pumping costs for electric-powered pumps ranged from $32.76
per acre for the smallest farms (FS < $100,000) to
$48.44 for the largest (FS > $500,000). Pumping
costs for all other power sources are relatively uniform
across farm sizes throughout the West, with small differences
by size class for gasoline-powered pumps.
By a significant margin, electricity is the dominant
power source for wells and/or pumps across size classes.
Nearly 70 percent of Western irrigation pumps use electricity:
79.4 percent for the smallest farms and 68.8 percent for
the largest. Electric pumping costs vary significantly
across States by farm size. For the smallest farms, pumping
costs ranged from $3.33 per acre (Kansas) to $115.04 (Arizona).
For the largest farms, costs ranged from $17.58 per acre
(North Dakota) to $63.60 per acre (Colorado).
Pumps powered using natural gas account for
16.2 percent of all irrigation pumps westwide, with pumping
costs for the smallest farms (FS < $100,000) ranging
from $16 per acre for Utah to $36.24 per acre for Texas.
For the largest farm-size class, pumping costs using natural
gas range from $9.05 per acre for Wyoming to $67.20 per
acre for Arizona.
Pumps powered using LP gas, propane, or butane
accounted for only 4 percent of all irrigation pumps in
the West in 1998. Pumping costs for the smallest farms
ranged from $5.71 per acre (South Dakota) to $67.65 per
acre (North Dakota). For the largest class of farms, pumping
costs ranged from $8.44 per acre (Utah) to $34.90 per
acre (New Mexico).
Pumps powered using diesel fuel accounted for
9.7 percent of all irrigation pumps westwide in 1998.
Pumping costs for the smallest farms ranged from $6.82
per acre (Oregon) to $40.68 per acre (New Mexico). For
the largest farms, costs ranged from $9.87 per acre (Arizona)
to $40.71 per acre (New Mexico).
Pumps powered using gasoline accounted for only
0.5 percent of all western irrigation pumps in 1998. Pumping
costs for the smallest farms ranged from $19.47 per acre
(Oklahoma) to $26.67 per acre (Texas). For the largest
farms, costs ranged from $5.82 per acre (Nebraska) to
$33.89 per acre (California).
Irrigation maintenance and repair
costs ($ per acre) (5-1). Irrigation maintenance
and repair costs averaged $11.11 per acre across the West
in 1998. While these costs are relatively uniform across
farm size, they do vary significantly across States. For
the smallest farms (FS < $100,000), irrigation maintenance
and repair costs ranged from $3.77 per acre (Montana)
to $25.19 per acre (Arizona). For the largest farms (FS
> $500,000), costs ranged from $2.65 per acre
(Montana) to $20.94 per acre (Washington).
4. Irrigation
Technologies by Farm Size (Electronic Data Tables 6-1
to 6-13; 7-1 to 7-16; and 10-1)
Sprinkler and gravity irrigation (farm numbers
and acres irrigated). The 1998 FRIS identifies
acres irrigated for four broad irrigation system/technology
categories: gravity-based systems, sprinkler systems,
drip/trickle systems, and subirrigation systems. FRIS
also identifies irrigated acres that have been laser-leveled.
Gravity irrigation technology is further
subdivided into four field water-application systems:
water applied through furrow-gravity application, between
borders or within basins, uncontrolled flooding, and "other"
gravity systems. In addition, for each of these field-application
systems, gravity technology is identified across five
field-level water-conveyance (delivery) methods: lined
or unlined open-surface ditch delivery, underground pipe
delivery, and above-ground pipe (including gated-pipe)
delivery.
Sprinkler irrigation technology is further
subdivided across low-, medium-, and high-pressure sprinkler
irrigation for center-pivot and linear-move systems, and
side-roll, wheel-move, or "other" mechanical-move
systems. Low-pressure sprinkler systems operate with an
average water pressure under 30 pounds per square inch
(PSI), while medium-pressure systems range from 30 to
59 PSI and high-pressure systems rate 60 PSI or greater.
In addition, sprinkler technology is identified for hand-move
systems and for solid-set or permanent systems.
Drip/trickle irrigation technology includes
surface and subsurface drip, and low-flow micro-sprinkler
systems. Subirrigation technology involves the use of
a water delivery or drainage system designed to maintain
the aquifer water table at a predetermined depth (within
the crop root zone). Laser-leveled irrigation involves
grading and earthmoving to eliminate variation in field
gradient using a laser-guided system. Laser-leveling
helps control water advance through the field and improves
uniformity of water distribution. For a detailed explanation
of irrigation technologies, see the AREI
publication.
FRIS data indicates that a different story exists for
the number of farms using particular irrigation technologies
versus irrigated acres associated with these technologies.
Across all technology classes, smaller farms (FS <
$250,000) dominate in the total number of farms for each
class across the West. This should not come as a surprise,
since most irrigated farms are small farms. Smaller irrigated
farms represent about 71 percent of all irrigated farms
using a sprinkler irrigation system, 81 percent of farms
using a gravity system, 82 percent of farms using drip/trickle
irrigation, and 94 percent of farms using subirrigation.
However, larger farms tend to irrigate more acres by technology
type, especially for pressurized technologies.
For sprinkler irrigated acres in the
West, 68 percent were irrigated by larger farms (FS >
$250,000) in 1998, with 44.2 percent irrigated by the
largest farms alone (FS > $500,000). Across
States, the share of sprinkler irrigation by larger farms
(FS >$250,000) ranged from 29 percent (Wyoming)
to 85 and 86 percent (California and Arizona).
For drip/trickle irrigation, 79 percent of all
drip/trickle acres were irrigated by larger farms, with
73 percent irrigated by the largest farms (FS>
$500,000). By State, the share of drip/trickle acres irrigated
by larger farms (FS >$250,000) ranged from 23
percent (New Mexico) to 89 percent (Washington). About
86 percent of drip/trickle-irrigated acres are in California
(1.0 million out of 1.2 million acres westwide). Within
California, 80 percent of drip/trickle-irrigated acres
are on larger irrigated farms.
For gravity and subirrigation systems, the structural
distributions are somewhat different. Here, acres irrigated
for the West are less skewed toward larger farms (FS >$250,000),
particularly for flood-irrigated acres. For furrow
gravity systems westwide, acres irrigated only moderately
favors larger farms, at 63 percent. Across States, however,
this share ranges from 22 percent for Utah to 93 percent
for Arizona and California. For furrow gravity systems,
eight States—Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming—have acreage
distributions favoring smaller farms (FS < $250,000).
But these States account for only 26 percent of furrow
gravity acres irrigated in the West.
For flood irrigation systems, the acres irrigated
slightly favors smaller farms, at 55 percent. However,
the small-farm share ranges from 17 percent for South
Dakota to 87 percent for Arizona. In 11 of the 17 Western
States, smaller farms irrigate a higher share of flood
irrigated acres than do larger farms—Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming—these States account
for 53 percent of flood-irrigated acres in the West.
For sub-irrigation systems across the West,
irrigated acres are only slightly skewed toward larger
farms (FS > $250,000) at 55 percent. Across
States, the share for larger farms ranges from 17 percent
for Nevada to 90 percent for California. Three States
alone—California, Idaho, and Wyoming—account for
52 percent of subirrigated acres.
For laser-leveled irrigated acres
(10-1), the westwide distribution again favors
larger farms (FS> $250,000), which account for
71 percent of these acres. The largest size class (FS
> $500,000) accounts for 56 percent of laser-leveled
irrigated acres westwide. Across States, the share for
larger farms (FS > $250,000) ranges from 19
percent for South Dakota to 94 percent for Arizona. Only
five Western States—Colorado, Idaho, Montana, South
Dakota, and Utah—have distributions favoring smaller
farms. These five States combined account for only 7 percent
of all laser-leveled acres across the West.
5. Water-Conserving/Higher-Efficiency
Irrigation by Farm Size (Electronic Data Tables 6-1 to
6-13; 7-1 to 7-16; 11-1 to 11-4; and 12-1 to 12-9)
Farm-level irrigation technologies vary widely in their
efficiency potential. Application efficiency here refers
to the relative amount of applied water that gets taken
up through plant consumptive-use—in general, the ratio
of plant consumptive-use to actual water applied. Uncontrolled
flood irrigation is widely recognized as the least efficient
irrigation system, generally below 50 percent but potentially
as low as 35 percent (Negri and Hanchar, 1989). In general,
gravity-based irrigation efficiencies range from 35 to
80/85 percent, with higher efficiencies for improved gravity
systems. These improved systems may involve distributing
water across a field using furrows, between borders, or
within a basin, in combination with a lined or piped field
water-delivery system, cablegation or surge-flow water
application, or gravity water-management practices, such
as use of tailwater reuse pits, furrow-diking, alternate-row
irrigation, or limited-irrigation set times. Pressure
or sprinkler-based system efficiencies range from 50 to
90/95 percent, with low-pressure systems, low-energy precision
application (LEPA), and drip/trickle systems capable of
efficiencies as high as 85-95 percent. The higher the
irrigation-application efficiency, the more water-conserving
the irrigation technology tends to be.
FRIS acres irrigated by technology were used to structure
a "water-conserving/higher efficiency" irrigation
technology class for pressure-based sprinkler irrigation
and for gravity irrigation. For each of these technology
classes, acres irrigated across irrigation technology
subcategories were summarized for three different levels
(or definitions) of the "water-conserving/higher
efficiency" technology class. The purpose of the
three alternative definitions is to provide a likely estimate
of a relative range of "water-conserving/higher
efficiency" irrigation across the 17 Western States.
Water-Conserving/Higher-Efficiency
Pressure/Sprinkler Irrigation by Farm Size (electronic
data tables 7-1 to 7-16 and 11-1 to 11-4)
Conserving pressure-irrigation definition (1)
includes only acres irrigated with drip/trickle systems,
accounting for about 1.2 million acres westwide in 1998.
Under this definition, smaller irrigated farms (FS <
$250,000), which make up nearly 81 percent of all irrigated
farms across the West, account for only 21 percent of
the most water-conserving/higher efficiency irrigation
(drip/trickle irrigated acres) in the West. Slightly more
than 73 percent of drip/trickle-irrigated acres (or 873,000
acres) are irrigated by the largest farms (FS >
$500,000). However, drip/trickle-irrigated acres account
for only 9.7 percent of all pressure-sprinkler-irrigated
acres for the largest irrigated farms. In addition, under
definition (1), water-conserving/higher efficiency pressure
irrigation would account for only 6.1 percent of all pressurized
irrigation in the West.
Conserving pressure-irrigation definition (2)
includes acres irrigated with low-pressure sprinkler irrigation
systems (those operating with PSI < 30) and with drip/trickle
systems. Expanding the scope of the "conserving"
definition to include low-pressure sprinkler systems increases
"conserving" irrigated acres westwide to about
9.1 million irrigated acres, accounting for 46.2 percent
of all pressure-irrigated acres in the West. Again, about
72 percent of these acres westwide (or 4.3 million acres)
are irrigated by the larger irrigated farms (FS >250,000).
Under definition 2, the "water-conserving/higher-efficiency
" irrigation rating for smaller irrigated farms
(FS < $250,000) averages about 41.1 percent, while
for larger irrigated farms (FS>$250,000) the
rating averages about 48.5 percent of all pressure-irrigated
acres. Westwide, this "conserving" definition
accounts for just 24 percent of all farm-irrigated acres.
Conserving pressure-irrigation definition (3)
includes all low- and medium-pressure-sprinkler irrigated
acres (for systems operating with a PSI < 60) and drip/trickle-irrigated
acres. While this is a relatively "broad"
definition, it does provide a reasonable estimate (based
on FRIS data) of an "upper bound" for the
most water-conserving/higher-efficiency pressurized irrigation
in the West. This definition accounts for 15.3 million
irrigated acres, or about 78 percent of all pressurized-irrigated
acres westwide, and about 39.8 percent of all farm-irrigated
acres westwide. Most of these acres (10.6 million acres,
or 69.3 percent) are irrigated by larger irrigated farms
(FS > $250,000). However, even given this skewed
distribution, the water-conserving/higher-efficiency irrigation
rating for the smaller irrigated farms (FS < $250,000)
averages 76.4 percent, while for larger irrigated farms
(FS > $250,000) the rating averages about 78.7
percent of all pressure sprinkler-irrigated acres.
In summary, based on 1998 FRIS data and given the alternative
"conserving" definitions, "water-conserving/higher-efficiency"
pressure-sprinkler irrigation in the West likely ranges
between 46 percent (conserving definition 2) and 78 percent
(conserving definition 3) across all irrigated farms.
The irrigation efficiency rating for definition 2 likely
represents a reasonable lower-bound estimate. However,
the efficiency rating for definition 3 as the upper bound
could be too broad. Even so, FRIS irrigation technology
data imply that room likely still exists for considerable
conservation improvement in irrigation water-use efficiency
across pressure sprinkler-irrigated agriculture in the
West. Across farm-size classes, the relative improvement
potential is slightly greater for smaller irrigated farms
(FS < $250,000) than for larger farms (FS >$250,000)
—as much as 66 and 52 percent, respectively, when based
on conserving definition (2). However, larger irrigated
farms irrigate many more acres, so the "conservation
effect" could be much greater for these farms.
Water-Conserving/Higher-Efficiency
Gravity Irrigation by Farm Size (electronic data tables
6-1 to 6-13 and 12-1 to 12-9)
Conserving gravity-irrigation definition (1)
includes furrow gravity-irrigated acres involving the
use of an above- or below-ground pipe or a lined open-ditch
field water-delivery system. In other words, furrow gravity
irrigation, in this case, is defined as "more conserving/efficient"
because the irrigation system more efficiently delivers
water to the field. Based on this definition, 40.5 percent
of all gravity-irrigated acres across the West are defined
as conserving/efficient, or 7.8 million acres out of 19.2
million gravity-irrigated acres. Nearly 64 percent of
these more conserving furrow-irrigated acres are on larger
irrigated farms (FS > $250,000). In addition,
for larger irrigated farms, conserving/efficient furrow-irrigated
acres account for an average of 47.4 percent of all gravity-irrigated
acres, compared with 22.2 percent for the smallest irrigated
farms (FS < $100,000). Clearly then, given this definition,
larger gravity-irrigated farms are likely more irrigation
efficient than smaller gravity-irrigated farms.
Conserving gravity-irrigation definition (2)
broadens gravity definition (1) to include gravity-irrigated
acres for flood irrigation that occurs between borders
or within basins, but limited to farms using laser-leveled
acres and using a pipe or a lined open-ditch field water
delivery system. Nearly 93 percent of these additional
gravity-irrigated acres are with larger irrigated farms
(FS > $250,000). Westwide, this definition of
conserving/efficient gravity irrigation still accounts
for only 44.1 percent of all gravity-irrigated acres (8.5
million acres out of 19.2 million acres). In addition,
the overall water-conserving/higher-efficiency irrigation
rating increases to 53.3 percent for larger irrigated
farms, while remaining under 23 percent for the smallest
irrigated farms. Clearly, the addition of laser-leveled
flood-irrigated acres—with its high capital costs—
had a greater impact on larger irrigated farms than on
smaller farms.
Conserving gravity-irrigation definition (3)
further broadens gravity definition (1) to include all
flood-irrigated acres supplied with water by an above-
or below-ground pipe or a lined open-ditch field water
delivery system. While definition (2) restricts the additional
conserving/efficient gravity irrigation to flood-irrigated
acres associated with farms using laser-leveling technology,
definition (3) includes all flood irrigation associated
with acres irrigated using a pipe or lined open-ditch
field water delivery system. Westwide, definition (3)
includes an additional 3.2 million acres as "conserving/efficient"
gravity irrigation, increasing the share of water-conserving/higher-efficiency
gravity irrigation in the West to 57.3 percent (nearly
11.0 million irrigated acres out of 19.2 million acres).
This conserving/efficiency rating for gravity irrigation
remains much higher for the largest irrigated farms (63.9
percent) than for the smallest irrigated farms (42.7 percent).
In summary, based on 1998 FRIS data and given the alternative
definitions for conserving/efficient gravity-irrigation,
"water-conserving/higher-efficiency" gravity
irrigation in the West likely ranges from 40 to 57 percent.
Conserving gravity definition (1) likely provides a reasonable
lower-bound estimate. However, it is uncertain whether
the better upper-bound estimate of water-conserving/higher-efficiency
gravity irrigation is definition (2), definition (3),
or somewhere between (2) and (3). Still, an estimated
range of either 40 to 44 percent based on definition (2)
or 40 to 57 percent based on definition (3) implies that
considerable room exists for conservation improvement
in irrigation water-use efficiency across gravity-irrigated
agriculture in the West. The relative improvement potential
for gravity irrigation is much greater for the smallest
irrigated farms than for larger farms (57.3 percent versus
36.1 percent). The difference between water-conserving/higher-efficiency
gravity irrigation and similar statistics for pressure-sprinkler
irrigation is that gravity irrigation is more uniformly
distributed across farm-size classes. Therefore, because
smaller farms irrigate a significant share of gravity-irrigated
acres in the West, a water conservation program that emphasizes
improved gravity irrigation may promote a more uniform
conservation effect across farm-size classes.
6. Irrigation
Water Management Practices by Farm Size (Electronic Data
Tables 8-1 to 8-11; 9-1 to 9-6; and 13-1 to 13-10)
Two farm-level water management items in the 1998 FRIS
further illustrate the potential for conservation improvement
across farm-size classes for western irrigated agriculture.
The first relates to the extent producers participate
in gravity water management practices. The second item,
relevant across all irrigated agriculture, addresses irrigation
water management intensity, that is, the level at which
producers apply water management at the intensive margin,
or the degree of sophistication used in determining when
to apply irrigation water for a given crop. Applying water
when the crop requires it and only as much as the plant
requires for crop consumptive use (excluding any salt
leaching requirement) will significantly improve irrigation
efficiency.
Producer participation in gravity water-management
practices (8-1 to 8-11 and 9-1 to 9-6). For the
1998 FRIS, producers reported participating in up to six
gravity water management practices. Gravity-irrigated
acres were reported for use of tailwater-reuse pits, surge-flow
or cablegation irrigation, limited-irrigation techniques
(that is, using limited irrigation set times and/or number
of irrigations), alternate-row irrigation practices, water-soluble
polyacrylamide, and special furrow water management practices
(including wide-spaced bed furrowing, compact furrowing,
or furrow diking). Polyacrylamide (or PAM) is a water-soluble
soil amendment that, when added to irrigation water, stabilizes
soil and waterborne sediment. PAM reduces irrigation-induced
soil erosion, enhances water infiltration, improves the
uptake of nutrients and pesticides, reduces the need for
furrow reshaping, and reduces the need for sediment control
below the field.
Westwide, only about 44 percent of gravity-irrigated
farms use one or more of the gravity water management
practices. A greater share of larger irrigated farms use
these practices (62-64 percent) than do smaller farms
(37-53 percent). In addition, relative to total gravity-irrigated
acres, gravity irrigators have a low participation rate
with any particular gravity water management practice
(ranging from 2 percent for PAM to 15 percent for alternate-row
irrigation). Low participation is consistent across farm-size
classes, although larger irrigated farms participate moderately
more than do smaller farms. Across the West, only 13 percent
of gravity-irrigated acres use tailwater-reuse systems,
about 4 percent use surge-flow or cablegation systems,
15 percent use limited-irrigation practices, 15 percent
use alternate-row irrigation, 2 percent use PAM, and 9
percent use special-furrow water management practices.
These results suggest significant potential for conservation
improvement with respect to gravity-irrigated agriculture
in the West.
Farm-size distributions of gravity water management practices
vary significantly across the Western States. In the case
of tailwater-reuse pits, for example, in Arizona, California,
Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, and Texas, larger irrigated
farms (FS > $250,000) account for a significant
share of gravity-irrigated acres using such recovery systems:
60-63 percent in Kansas and Nebraska; 65-79 percent in
Texas and Nevada; and 90-94 percent in California and
Arizona. For Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, North and South
Dakota, and Utah, smaller irrigated farms (FS < $250,000)
account for a significant share of gravity-irrigated acres
using a tailwater-recovery system, ranging from 64-68
percent in New Mexico and Idaho to 84-93 percent in Utah
and South Dakota.
For surge-flow or cablegation systems, larger irrigated
farms dominate in California, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska,
and New Mexico (ranging from 58 percent of acres irrigated
with these systems for New Mexico to 87-90 percent for
Arizona and Nebraska). Smaller irrigated farms account
for the greater share of these systems on gravity-irrigated
acreage in Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon,
South Dakota, and Wyoming.
For use of limited-irrigation practices (limiting irrigation
set times and/or number of irrigations), larger irrigated
farms dominate in Arizona, California, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, and Washington (ranging from 63-64 percent for
Nebraska and Kansas to 80 and 94 percent for California
and Arizona). Smaller irrigated farms dominate the use
of limited-irrigation practices in Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (ranging from
66 percent for Oregon to 87 percent for Utah and South
Dakota).
Westwide, alternate-row irrigation is the most heavily
used gravity water management practice (accounting for
15.3 percent, or 2.9 million acres out of 19.2 million
gravity-irrigated acres). Nebraska, Oklahoma, Washington,
and Texas account for the largest shares of gravity-irrigated
acres using this practice (51, 27, 27, and 26 percent).
Across the West, larger irrigated farms use this practice
more extensively, except in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, South
Dakota, and Utah. In these States, smaller irrigated farms
use this practice more extensively than do larger farms
(ranging from 58 percent for South Dakota to 70 and 82
percent for Utah and Montana).
The dominant use of polyacrylamide (or PAM) occurs in
Idaho, Washington, Colorado, and Wyoming, where PAM accounts
for 9, 25, 3, and 4 percent of gravity-irrigated acres.
These States account for 78 percent of all gravity-irrigated
acres using PAM westwide (248,871 acres out of 318,868
acres). For Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming, larger irrigated
farms (FS > $250,000) are the dominant users
of PAM (accounting for 69, 76, and 91 percent of PAM irrigated
acres by State). Colorado's 46,900 acres using PAM are
more uniformly distributed across farm-size classes. However,
because commercial use of PAM in irrigated agriculture
was introduced just in 1995, the extent of its adoption
could easily increase.
Special furrowing practices involve the use of wide-spaced
bed furrows, compacted furrows, and/or furrow diking.
These practices reduce soil erosion and improve water
infiltration. Westwide, about 9 percent of gravity-irrigated
acres (or 1.7 million acres out of 19.2 million acres)
use these practices. California and Texas account for
1.1 million acres, or 63 percent of the gravity-irrigated
acres using these practices in the West. In both States,
larger irrigated farms account for most of the acres on
which these practices are used (97 percent in California
and 68 percent in Texas). For most other Western States,
smaller irrigated farms account for much of the acreage
in these practices. In Arizona, Kansas, and Nebraska,
larger irrigated farms are the dominant users of these
practices (90, 68, and 81 percent), even though each of
these States accounts for less than 100,000 acres using
these practices.
Producer decisions on irrigation
water-management intensity (13-1 to 13-10).
FRIS reported information on irrigation water-management
intensity based on when a producer decided to apply water
to a crop. This information was available only on a "farm-level
participation basis," not on an acreage basis. Therefore,
the following summary results reflect the percentage of
FRIS farms using alternative means of deciding when to
apply irrigation water.
In general, the more conventional means of deciding when
to apply irrigation water tend to prevail across the West.
Both "observing the condition of the crop"
and "feel of the soil" are by far the dominant
means used by irrigators. Nearly 71 percent of irrigated
farms across the West simply observe the condition of
the crop, and 40 percent judge irrigation water needs
by just feeling the soil. The next level of reported water
management intensity involves using crop calendar schedules
(used by 19.8 percent of irrigated farms) or simply applying
water whenever it is delivered to the farm "in-turn"
by the local water-supply organization (12.5 percent).
Use of media reports on crop water needs is the conventional
means least used to decide when to apply irrigation water
(used by only 5.3 percent of irrigated farms in the West).
For conventional means of deciding when to apply irrigation
water, all are heavily favored by smaller irrigated farms.
Westwide, of the irrigated farms using "observed
condition of the crop" as a means of deciding when
to apply irrigation water, 77 percent are smaller farms
(FS < $250,000), with the smallest farms (FS < $100,000)
accounting for 59 percent. Likewise, smaller farms make
up nearly 76 percent of the farms using "feel of
the soil," 91 percent of farms applying water when
it is "delivered in-turn," and 82 percent
of farms using a "crop calendar schedule."
Therefore, even though the farm-size distribution for
farms using "media reports on crop water needs"
is fairly uniform, less efficient means of onfarm water
management characterizes smaller irrigated farms (FS <
$250,000) in the West.
Only about 11.6 percent of irrigated farms in the West
use one or more modern means of deciding when to apply
irrigation water (including use of either
soil-moisture sensing devices, commercial irrigation scheduling
services, and/or computer simulation models). In addition,
use of these more intensive
water-management practices is relatively uniform between
smaller and larger irrigated farms (49.6 and 50.4 percent).
However, both level of use and farm-size distributions
vary significantly across these management-intensive means
of deciding when to irrigate.
Westwide, only 8.1 percent of irrigated farms reported
using soil-moisture sensing devices. In aggregate, the
farm-size distribution for this decision tool is relatively
uniform between smaller and larger irrigated farms (51
and 49 percent). However, a greater share of the larger
irrigated farms (16-26 percent) use soil-moisture sensing
devices than do smaller irrigated farms (4-9 percent).
Westwide, only about 4 percent of irrigated farms use
commercial irrigation-scheduling services to decide on
when to apply water. Nearly 64 percent of the irrigated
farms using these services are larger farms (FS >
$250,000).
Computer simulation models (the most management-intensive
means of deciding when to irrigate) are used by only 1
percent of irrigated farms in the West. However, 60 percent
of the irrigated farms using such models are, surprisingly,
smaller farms [with 47 percent among the smallest irrigated
farms (FS < $100,000)].
Across the Western States with only few exceptions, most
irrigated farms using conventional means to decide when
to irrigate are smaller irrigated farms. In particular,
for irrigated farms using "observed condition of
the crop," most are smaller farms (FS < $250,000),
with shares ranging from 52 percent for Kansas to 90-92
percent for New Mexico and Utah. Most irrigated farms
using "feel of the soil" are also smaller
farms, with shares ranging from 50 percent for Kansas
to 88-94 percent for Montana and Utah. Arizona and Kansas
are exceptions. For Arizona, nearly 67 percent of the
irrigated farms using "feel of the soil" to
decide when to irrigate are larger irrigated farms. For
Kansas, this distribution is uniform across small and
larger irrigated farms.
Farms that irrigate based on "water delivered in-turn"
are mostly smaller farms in most all Western States, with
shares ranging from 62 percent for Nebraska to 96-98 percent
for Idaho and Oregon. For this particularly restrictive
water management strategy, 10 Western States report that
over 90 percent of the irrigated farms applying water
based on "in-turn deliveries" are smaller
irrigated farms. Oklahoma is the only State where farms
that time their irrigation based on "in-turn deliveries,"
most are larger irrigated farms (64 percent). For irrigated
farms using "media reports on crop water needs,"
seven Western States report that most are smaller farms,
ranging from 52-53 percent for Wyoming and Nebraska to
93-94 percent for Utah and Montana. On the other hand,
eight States report that most of these farms are larger
farms, with shares ranging from 53-54 percent for Colorado,
New Mexico, and Texas, to 94-100 percent for Kansas and
Arizona.
In aggregate, irrigated farms in California, Kansas,
Nebraska, and Texas make more extensive use of the more
modern intensive means of deciding when to apply irrigation
than do irrigated farms elsewhere in the West. Even so,
for each of these management-intensive decision tools,
variability exists across States.
For "soil-moisture sensing devices," westwide
distribution is relatively uniform between smaller and
larger irrigated farms (51 versus 49 percent). In 10 Western
States irrigated farms using such devices are mostly smaller
farms, with shares ranging from 54 percent for Oregon
to 90 percent for Utah. But, in five States—Colorado,
Idaho, Nebraska, Texas, and Washington—irrigated farms
using soil-moisture sensing devices are generally larger
farms, with shares ranging from 58 percent for Colorado
to 83 percent for Idaho.
For irrigated farms using "commercial irrigation
scheduling services," most are smaller farms within
seven States, with shares ranging from 53 percent for
Oklahoma to 97-98 percent for Nevada and Utah. But in
nine States, irrigated farms that use an irrigation-scheduling
service are generally larger farms, with shares ranging
from 58 percent for Oregon to 95-100 percent for Washington
and California.
For irrigated farms using "computer simulation
models," most are smaller farms within six States
—California, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota,
and Utah—with shares ranging from 54 percent for Kansas
to 100 percent for Montana. But in seven States—Arizona,
Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington
—most farms using this water management practice are
larger farms, with shares ranging from 56 percent for
Oregon to 100 percent for Arizona, Idaho, and Nebraska.
Summary 1998 FRIS data indicate that less management-intensive/less
water-use efficient means to decide when to apply irrigation
water dominate Western irrigated agriculture. This farm-level
inefficiency in irrigation water management is particularly
significant for smaller irrigated farms. Most irrigated
farms use conventional means of deciding when to apply
water. Less than 12 percent of irrigated farms make use
of the most water management-intensive/water-conserving
means to irrigate. Even for the largest irrigated farms
(FS > $500,000), less than 35 percent make use
of the most modern means of deciding when to irrigate.
Again, there likely exists significant potential for water
conservation improvement within irrigated agriculture
across much of the West.
7. Barriers
to Irrigation System Improvements by Farm Size (Electronic
Data Tables 15-1 to 15-9)
The relatively slow rate of change in the adoption of
more efficient irrigation technology systems reflects
the impact of barriers to farm-level irrigation system
improvements. FRIS reports data on up to eight specific
factors that restrict implementation of irrigation system
improvements that might reduce energy and/or conserve
water. FRIS producers were asked to identify all barriers
that apply to their farm operation, including one or more
of the following:
1. Have not investigated improvements
2. Risk of reduced yield or poorer quality crop yields
from not meeting water needs
3. Physical field/crop conditions limit system improvements
4. Improvement(s) will reduce costs, but not enough to
cover the installation costs
5. Cannot finance improvements, even if they reduce costs
6. Landlord(s) will not share in the cost of improvements
7. Uncertainty about future availability of water, and
8. Will not be farming this place long enough to justify
new improvements.
Westwide, any particular barrier to irrigation system
improvement is generally more of a problem for smaller
irrigated farms (FS < $250,000) than for larger irrigated
farms (FS > $250,000). For example, 81.7 percent
of the irrigators identifying "lack of financing
ability" as a barrier to irrigation system improvements
were smaller irrigated farms. This small-farm predisposition
to barriers ranges from 60 percent for "landlord
will not share in the cost of improvements," to
88.3 percent for "have not investigated improvements."
Across the West, three barriers to system improvements
stand out as more important across all irrigated farms:
"have not investigated improvements" (22.8
percent of FRIS irrigators); "improvement installation
costs are greater than benefits," i.e., perceived
benefits do not cover installation costs (23.8 percent);
and "lack of financing ability" (23.4 percent).
For both small farm-size classes (1 and 2), these three
barriers are more limiting for a greater number of farms
than are all other barriers. For both large farm-size
classes (3 and 4), the dominant perceived barriers to
irrigation system improvements are "improvement
installation costs are greater than benefits" and
"lack of financing ability."
In other words, "perceived economic benefits"
or "financing" problems are the prominent
barriers to irrigation system improvements across all
irrigated farms; for smaller irrigated farms, "not
investigating" the merits of such system improvements
is an additional barrier. These results suggest a substantial
conservation payoff from increased extension/education
efforts on the economic merits of more efficient irrigation
systems and from alternative private/public financing
options, particularly for smaller irrigated farms. Such
efforts could also help focus implementation of water
conservation programs in meeting desired regional resource
and small-farm policy objectives.
FRIS-listed barriers to irrigation system improvements
are cited more often, almost universally across all Western
States, by smaller irrigated farms than by larger irrigated
farms. However, several State-specific exceptions are
worth noting. First, in Arizona, California, and Washington,
a majority of irrigated farms that identified "lack
of landlord participation in cost-sharing" as a
barrier to system improvements were from larger irrigated
farms (FS > $250,000) (79 percent for Arizona,
92 percent for California, and 63 percent for Washington).
Second, for Arizona, nearly three-quarters of irrigated
farms that identified "uncertainty about future
water availability" as a barrier to irrigation system
improvements were larger irrigated farms. Finally, for
several barriers to system improvements for several States,
the farm-size distributional impact was relatively uniform
between smaller and larger irrigated farms. However, for
most Western States, barriers to irrigation system improvements
were noted in FRIS more frequently by smaller irrigated
farms than by larger farms.
8. Producer
Participation in Irrigation-Related Public Cost-Share
Programs by Farm Size (Electronic Data Tables 16-1 to
16-6)
The 1998 FRIS sheds insight into cost-shared irrigation-improvement
investments across farm-size classes. However, FRIS information
on farm participation in public cost-share programs is
available only on a "farm-level participation basis,"
not on an acreage basis.
Westwide, FRIS results indicate that only about 13 percent
of irrigated farms participated in any public cost-share
program for irrigation or drainage improvements between
1994 and 1998. Most of these farm participants were smaller
irrigated farms (FS < $250,000), accounting for 74
percent of all FRIS participants (across all programs).
However, a larger share (21 percent) of irrigated farms
within the largest size class (FS > $500,000)
participated in public cost-share programs than participated
(11 percent) from the smallest farm-size class (FS <
$100,000). This likely implies that a greater share of
larger irrigated farm operators recognize and/or are capable
of taking advantage of irrigation-related cost-share programs.
Only in Arizona, Kansas, and Washington did a greater
share of larger (FS > $250,000) than smaller
irrigated farms participate in public cost-share programs
for irrigation improvements (57, 70, and 58 percent).
The participation rate was nearly 50-50 between small
and large irrigated farms for Nebraska and Texas. For
the remaining Western States, smaller irrigated farms
(FS < $250,000) accounted for a larger share of public
cost-share program participation (ranging from 58 percent
for Oregon to 87 percent for Idaho). For California, the
largest irrigated State, smaller irrigated farms accounted
for 84 percent of public cost-share program participation.
Federal programs have accounted for a greater level of
cost-share program participation across the West (11.1
percent of FRIS farms) than have State and local water-management/water-supply
districts (7.1 percent). Among Federal program participants,
a greater share of farms (10.5 percent) participated in
cost-sharing through USDA (for example, EQIP) than participated
(at 6.7 percent) through non-USDA Federal programs (for
example, through EPA and the BoR). Of USDA program participants,
77 percent were smaller farms (FS < $250,000). Of non-USDA
Federal program participants, 86 percent were smaller
farms. Of irrigated farms using State and/or local cost-share
programs, 81 percent were smaller farms.
While most irrigated farms participating in USDA cost-share
programs for irrigation improvements have been smaller
irrigated farms (FS < $250,000), the level of participation
varies widely across Western States. Again, for Arizona
and Kansas, a greater share of these program participants
(83 and 76 percent) have been larger irrigated farms (FS
> $250,000). For Texas, USDA cost-share program
participation has been split 50-50 between small and large
irrigated farms. For the remaining Western States, small
irrigated farms accounted for the largest share of participation
in USDA cost-share programs for irrigation improvements
(ranging from 59 percent for Washington to 90 percent
for California). Seven Western States—California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah –
which account for 67 percent of USDA cost-share program
participation for irrigation improvements in the West,
had small farm participation rates greater than 80 percent.
References
Aillery, Marcel, and Noel Gollehon (1997). "Irrigation
Water Management," in Agricultural Resources
and Environmental Indicators, 1996-97, Margot Anderson
and Dick Magleby, Eds., Agricultural Handbook, No. 712,
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
(July): 225-239.
Hoppe, Robert A. and James M. MacDonald (2001). America's
Diverse Family Farms: Assorted Sizes, Types, and Situations,
Agricultural Information Bulletin, No. 769, Economic Research
Service, USDA (May): pp. 8.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (1997).
1997 Census
of Agriculture, State Data, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (1999).
Farm
and Ranch Irrigation Survey (1998), Vol. 3, Special
Studies, Part 1, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC.
National Research Council (NRC) (1992). Restoration of
Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy.
National Academy of Science, National Academy Press: Washington,
DC.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (1997a).
America's Private Land: A Geography of Hope. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (June).
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (1997b).
Water Quality and Agriculture: Status, Conditions, and
Trends. John D. Sutton, Ed., Working Paper No. 16, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (July).
Negri, Donald H. and John J. Hanchar (1989). "Water
Conservation Through Irrigation Technology." Agriculture
Information Bulletin, No. 576, Economic Research Service,
USDA (November).
Osborn, Tim, C., Carmen Sandretto, and Dwight Gadsby.
(July 1997) "Conservation
and Environmental Programs Overview." In Agricultural
Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996-97, Agricultural
Handbook, No. 712, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, pp. 255-69.
Pavelis, George A. and M. S Anwer. (December 2002). Water
Resource Investments in Irrigated Agriculture: A Conservation
Basebook, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. An Interim Report for the study
project Management Practice Study III: Social and Economic
Sustainability of Irrigated Family Farms in the West,
Department of Sociology Water Laboratory, Colorado State
University, John Wilkins-Wells, Principal Investigator.
Schaible, Glenn D. (2000). "Economic and Conservation
Tradeoffs of Regulatory vs. Incentive-based Water Policy
in the Pacific Northwest." International Journal
of Water Resources Development (IJWRD), Vol. 16, No. 2
(June): 221-238.
Schaible, Glenn D. and Marcel P. Aillery. (March 2003)
"Irrigation Technology Transitions in the Mid-Plains
States: Implications for Water Conservation/Water Quality
Goals and Institutional Changes." International
Journal of Water Resources Development (IJWRD), Vol. 19,
No. 1: 67-88.
Schaible, Glenn D., C. S. Kim, and Norman K. Whittlesey
(1991). "Water Conservation Potential from Irrigation
Technology Transitions in the Pacific Northwest."
Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 16, No.
2: 194-206.
Solley, Wayne B., Robert R. Pierce, and Howard A. Perlman
(1998). Estimated Use of Water in the United States in
1995. Circular 1200, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department
of Interior.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2001). Food
and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (September).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2000). Meeting
the Challenge of A Time to Act: USDA Progress and Achievements
on Small Farms. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1563,
Research, Education, and Economics, USDA, Washington,
DC (April).
Willis, D. B. and N. K. Whittlesey (1998). "Water
Management Policies for Streamflow Augmentation in an
Irrigated River Basin." Journal of Agricultural
& Resource Economics (JARE), Vol. 23, No. 1: 170-190.
|
